SocIal Changes In a global World - SAGE Publications · are presented such as modernization theory, ... were inspired by theories of modernization and pointed out a growing convergence

Ulrike Schuerkens

SocIal Changes In a global World

00_Schuerkens_Prelims.indd 3 4/22/2017 3:06:34 PM

SAGE Publications Ltd1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City RoadLondon EC1Y 1SP

SAGE Publications Inc.2455 Teller RoadThousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications India Pvt LtdB 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial AreaMathura RoadNew Delhi 110 044

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd3 Church Street#10-04 Samsung HubSingapore 049483

Typeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, IndiaPrinted in the UK

Ulrike Schuerkens 2017

First published 2017

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017930217

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-4739-3021-6ISBN 978-1-4739-3022-3 (pbk)

At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using FSC papers and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the PREPS grading system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.

00_Schuerkens_Prelims.indd 4 4/22/2017 3:06:34 PM

1SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT(S) IN A

GLOBALIZED WORLD

Summary

The chapter presents the current theoretical state of research on the subject of transformations and development. In addition to a brief historical overview, the central theoretical approaches are presented such as modernization theory, dependency theories, structural-functionalist theories, multiple modernities, and the theory of entangled modernities. As such, the chap-ter prepares the reader to understand the following chapters which deal with empirical transformation fields.

INTRODUCTIONThe reconstruction of social change in societies has to take various factors into account and has to combine synchronic and diachronic elements. Today, if one ana-lyzes the main theories of social change, dependency theory, the theories of evolution and structural-functionalist variants, one has to look for approaches that overcome their incompleteness. It seems currently consensual that evolutionary theories and structural-functionalist approaches cannot adequately explain social transformations and development(s) because of their epistemological structure (Helbling, 1984: 84). Among scholars defending evolutions, these are understood as the development of human societies in a succession of necessary and non-reversible societal types. Structural functionalism tries to explain society ‒ including its history ‒ through structures and functions that maintain the stability of the social system. Recent anthropological and sociological approaches argue that the explanation of social changes and diachronic aspects must also consider synchronous processes. However, a succession of predefined types of society cannot be presumed.

01_Schuerkens_Ch-01.indd 1 4/22/2017 3:06:36 PM

2 SOCIAL CHANGES IN A GLOBAL WORLD

I agree with Helbling (1984: 95) that a social process and social change can only be explained by isolating particularly significant elements that make up a given social structure and by analyzing the relationships between them. By focusing on certain elements and their interrelations, a specific point of a transformation process can be shown. The transformation of a given social structure or two different structures indicates different periods of the history of a social system. Without the concept of structural processes, social change cannot be explained and demonstrated.

Theoretical Approaches to Social Change

The theoretical approaches that underlie the entire analytical framework of social change are surprisingly diverse. This diversity began in the 1960s with moderniza-tion theories of mainly Anglo-Saxon origin; in the 1970s, theories of dependency theories followed, mainly promoted by Latin American intellectuals. At the same time and at a higher level of abstraction, theories of structural change were devel-oped. In the 1980s, approaches were widespread that supported an endogenous development, promoted by UNESCO; the decoupling perspective of the Southern countries was also discussed (S. Amin). In the 1990s, globalization theorists began to examine social developments. Among them, one could find many sociologists, who were inspired by theories of modernization and pointed out a growing convergence of societies due to the globalization of cultural, economic, and political systems. Some of these scholars deny that distinct modernities can be identified nowadays. The world-system approach underlined that developments in the various regions of the world could only be described as Western copies or its deviations influenced by postcolonial developments.

Multiple Modernities

In recent years, the approach of multiple modernities of S. Eisenstadt reached a cer-tain influence among sociologists. According to this paradigm, development options are not understood as a failure or deficiency of a general model, but as a singular form of modernity. The observed variations are considered by this approach as typi-cal for an overarching framework of modernity. The publications of these theorists assume that, on the one hand, one can determine a common core of societies (Antweiler, 2011), which characterizes a modernity in the singular and, on the other, one can determine other historical legacies in different regions, primarily based on major religious communities (Christianity, Hinduism, etc.). Eisenstadt (2006) claimed that the content core of modernity is not fixed but reacts dynamically so that many varieties can be found in the global world.

This cultural-historical approach, however, is not considered sufficient by its critics (e.g. Berger, 2006 and Schmidt, 2006). According to them, the newer variant of research on capitalism, democracies, or cultural systems is pointing in the right


3SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT(S) IN A GLOBALIZED WORLD

direction, but an overall synthesizing macro-sociological perspective is still largely missing, similar to that presented by research on modernization. It is now assumed that there will be no convergence of countries and regions in the direction of one modernity pattern because the same institutional solutions are not found every-where. The concept of path dependency, which was emphasized and studied in recent years, interests many scholars (Goldstone, 1998; Mahoney, 2000; Beyer, 2005). It draws attention to contingent histories and questions the development of gen-eralizable relationships. According to Parsons’ understanding, this argument relates mainly to the uni-linear evolutionism.

Shalini Randeria (1999, 2000) has further developed the model of Eisenstadt and speaks in contrast to this research program of ‘entangled modernities’ or inter-woven forms. She proposes to abandon the idea of parallel versions of modernity and instead to speak of a model of interwoven forms that has arisen in the course of world history. Today, institutional similarities can be found in different countries; they are the result of imitations and mutual learning.

Glocalization

It can be assumed that new cultural forms can more easily be adopted than single cultural or philosophical aspects. Modernity is therefore, according to S. Randeria, a global arena that constantly forces societal aspects together but which will neces-sarily lead to convergent developments. Meanwhile, a variety of studies – some of them are described in the individual chapters of this book – shows that some forms of Western modernity are not only copied, but connect themselves to new glocal units with local forms that often have a specific character and may have similarities in form, structure, and function across regions and countries (Schuerkens, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014a). Thus, Hall and Soskice’s (2001: 60) claim vari-ants of capitalist development does not stand in opposition to the world market, but unfold in and with it. However, it should be noted that these global processes still remain under-analyzed. This book is therefore in its different chapters an analysis of various social dimensions (inequality, economy, culture, etc.) in different regions of the world showing the current state of research. The result will allow arguing that one can no longer speak of a change of institutions towards a global pattern. Instead, one can find transnational processes that should be further investigated in globalization studies in order to demonstrate transnational connections of indi-viduals, organizations, societies, or countries that have grown in importance in the last three decades. States have thus expanded their ability to check populations in transnational spaces (Interpol, NSA). Interactions, ideologies, institutions, the hier-archies of gender, ethnicity, and class are no longer only supported within nations, but have gained significance across nations. Transnational spaces that are composed of virtual and real social spaces exist in individual nation-states. Individuals, groups, and organizations act in such spaces (Boccagni, 2012).



Empirical Findings

Today, it cannot be denied that empirical findings on individual measurable indicators such as GDP, life expectancy, and literacy rates suggest a convergence, as Berger (2006) and Schmidt (2006) emphasized. Nevertheless, behind these similar figures, different institutions and systems, in short, qualitative differences exist that cannot be overlooked. One can for example point out the different forms of capitalism in Western Europe, Japan, and China, as respective cultural schemes that assure specific expressions (e.g. on the dimension of individualism-collectivism or in accordance to ethical requirements). One can also refer to social globalization, through measur-able personal contacts (tourism, street market, foreign residence), information flows (Internet users, the number of television stations, the number of newspapers) and cultural similarities, such as the number of McDonalds restaurants, Ikea stores, and the book trade (Dreher, 2006; Dreher et al., 2008). One might think that these measurements threaten given cultures. This could even more apply in the West than the South. But in fact, can social aspects of globalization be measured? It seems as if transnational networks or people who live as migrants in other regions can be described, so that our focus on the study of transnational networks in parts of this book should permit an answer.

Differentiation Theory

These considerations lead me to introduce a differentiation theory that can further develop cultural and structural comparisons in order to identify different constella-tions of institutions and their relationships to each other. The importance of culture is weighted in a different way during a transformation of structures. In today’s global society, culture plays a role that is responsible for different dynamics. These are char-acterized by certain types of societies in the North and the South, or within a society between different cultural milieus. In this sense, it seems to me as if the multiple modernity approach to civilizations is given too much preference, so that some aspects of the glocalization debate with its different levels (nations, regions, and local contexts) should be fruitfully introduced. This would then lead to social actions that should be examined in complex institutions ‒ as I will show in the individual chap-ters of this book ‒ in which culture plays an important role. Eisenstadt’s approach is interesting in terms of collective identities of geographical regions, such as Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa, where the respective national societies struggle to develop distinctive identities, which have been characterized by common colonial and postcolonial political influences. These regions struggle to resist the transnational forces that brought them together. Examples are today’s economic unions, such as Mercosur (Mercado Común del Sur) or ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States). The recent cycles of globalization can thus only be understood by the study of the growth of transnational flows, such as those in the Andean Community or in the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). These regions combine various states into an entity characterized by transnational flows and a partially shared history.



Sanjay Subrahmanyam (1997, 2005) has spoken in this regard of connected histories, and Michael Werner and Bénédicte Zimmermann (2002, 2006) have coined the term histoire croisée. This view allows taking mutual influences and resistances, new combi-nations and transformations into account. These interactions point to a network of dynamic relationships, defined by certain connections with each other. A transna-tional perspective that exceeds migration processes is thus needed in the research and development of transformations. The discussions in the various chapters of this book concretize this perspective and show that a societal analysis must transcend national boundaries. Today, we realize more and more that international groupings and agree-ments spring up like mushrooms. They are welcomed as they provide new skills and exercise power that responds to global requirements. Thus, the concepts of globaliza-tion and transnationalism refer to similar strands of research that coexist. Practices that are introduced across borders, social networks that exist or have existed prior to the globalization of the last 30 years, as well as the movement of ideas and people make it possible to analyze the processes that form collective identities. Such a perspective allows us to understand how the cultural history of macro-regions is connected to collective identities and affects power, meaning, and the character of social, political, and cultural forces of a society.

A THEORETICAL APPROACH OF THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND SOCIAL CHANGESThe theoretical approach used in this book builds upon a theory of social change that was developed by Teune and Mlinar (1978). According to the authors, specific properties of all social systems make them develop and change. Change is defined as a growth of social differentiation, a parallel increase in the number of elements, and the integration of new elements. The analysis of social structures allows defining important factors of social transformations. In addition, the special type of conflicts and frictions characteristic for a given process and period has to be determined. Consequences of individual events of an endogenous and exogenous or, better, a global and local nature can be detected and possibilities of developing a certain type of society can then be suggested.

Social transformations can be explained by an analysis of written materials, the use of quantitative and qualitative methods, and the comparison of different periods of a society. The dynamics of a given society are thus different from other social enti-ties, but due to the current interdependence of societies there are certain common processes. An analysis of social changes must take into account social relations among the concerned populations, the impact of globalized social structures on the local populations, and the phenomenon of change that results from the interaction of dif-ferent social systems. The analysis of the transformation of a society is characterized by extreme diversity. Only an investigation that takes into account these three aspects can show the complex character of these social relations and the specific nature of these transformations.



A Theory of Social Transformations

This general framework leads me to clarify the subject of the theory of social transformations (see also Kollmorgen, 1999). In general, scholars try to use these approaches in order to explain causes, forms, and possible directions of social change. The anthropological and sociological explanations of transformations refer to the structure of a society in transition and to factors causing this change. The analysis of the transformation of a society permits to show conditions and describe elements that lead a society from a characteristic situation to another one.

It seems of interest in the analysis of transformations and developments to focus on the concepts of structure and time and to highlight particular aspects with regard to different categories of countries (Crow and Heath, 2002; Evans, 2003). The struc-tural and temporal aspects of development concern both global and local social structures that interact with each other. Due to the European colonial expansion of the last centuries, the countries of the geographical South in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia continued to stay in close contact to Europe, so that local economic, political, or cultural structures could gradually change. A basic assumption of this approach is that particular structures were internationalized, leading to a more or less conscious acceptance of global models or at least parts of them by more or less large population groups in the respective regions. These processes led to situations in these regions which made it possible to detect a specific mix of indigenous local and Western (global) models. Colonization thus led to a certain degree of structural changes in colonized regions. The growing interactions between colonial powers and local populations consisted e.g. in the introduction of wage labour, a formal educational system, and a bureaucratic administrative system. Thus, the direction of change was determined by a politically implanted outside structural model which had to adapt to a certain degree to local cultural structures that could permit func-tional societal changes. One can argue that the resulting frictions, contradictions, and mixtures were considered development problems by Western elites and their counterparts in the South since the 1960s.

Diversity of Local Cultures

Despite the diversity of local cultures, the socio-economic and cultural elements that were brought from the outside into these social systems were limited. In a first phase, local elites or groups that were chosen for this purpose introduced the proposed innovations. Therefore, one could find a similarity of developments in certain closely linked geographic spaces. Changes introduced from the outside were then extended to other population groups, often involving coercion and violence. This integration of new structural elements into existing social systems took place in gradual and successive processes, so that the principal influences grew over time. For sub-Saharan Africa – the region I know the best ‒ this meant several successive developments and a process of modernization in the 1960s (the introduction of mass media, democratic structures, and urbanization); a dependency and debt crisis in the



1980s; and, finally, the acceptance of certain elements of global structural models in the 1990s and after the turn of the millennium (through the introduction of politi-cal parties and democratic electoral processes; the promotion of the participation of girls and women in schools, universities, and the wider society; and the expansion of formal and informal employment). Today, these processes influence all population groups globally: immigrants from remote rural areas of southern regions bring infor-mation from the North to the South by means of videos, webcams, the Internet, and smartphones. Today, one rarely meets groups that are still unaffected by any global structural features. The type of change depends on the particular local cultural sys-tems, which react differently to these elements coming from the outside of a given society. Actors of these local social systems have shown resistance and have chal-lenged the increasing influence of structures originating in the global development model. These local societies have accepted the coexistence of very different cultural models (e.g. the culture of poverty or that of the elites). These models have formed new relations with elements of global social structures, which have been imported from outside and have led to ambivalent new social systems.

At this point, the time factor is a tool for analyzing the changes that have taken place in these societies. Since a change in a social system never affects all elements at the same time, individual elements mostly convert in a first phase and initiate the change of other elements until the moment when the emergence of another structural model is identified. In many regions of the world, structural transforma-tion processes can be observed that are more or less dependent on given local social systems of populations so that parts of these systems continue to exist for years.

The problems of social transformations and development(s) are thus linked to analyses on the interactions of different cultural models. These processes are long term ones and require a diachronic description so that the different periods can be described in a chronological order that takes phenomena resulting from the increased interaction into account.

Different Research Methods

An approach that would respect these different aspects requires a significant anal-ysis of their developments and the use of different research methods. To show discords, fractures, and frictions within the societies of the North, the South, or the East, it seems essential to compare elements of the interaction of indigenous or autochthonous local societies to elements of global cultures and societies. The last decade has seen an increasing number of studies that have gone in this direc-tion. Nevertheless, they often do not represent a detailed overview of the problem, as they investigate transformations and their mechanisms in parts of local soci-eties, without locating the problem within a larger theoretical framework. The brief overview of theoretical perspectives of transformation problems at the begin-ning of this chapter has shown that development processes can only be considered adequately when the transformation of local societies is incorporated into global transformation processes and structures.



THE CONCEPT OF STRUCTURE IN EXPLAINING SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT(S)If one considers that powerful actors most often form the structures of a society, these structures can be regarded as rules that regulate the lives of the majority of individuals. These rules can be known or unknown. During an interaction, social actors can either make use of them as a resource for a specific targeted action or don’t use them, if they do not know their existence. The structure of a society is a factor that gives the system stability and continuity. The social actors who know the functioning of this structure can use their knowledge to realize their intentions. In this way, they are included in a process that involves the structure and the interactions between both. The social actor who does not know the functioning of this structure rather suffers its consequences and rarely has the opportunity to influence their functioning. The distinction between intended and unintended actions becomes important at this point. Analytically, both types of actions must be considered, as they often coexist in the lives of the actors. The actions of individuals are shaped by macro-societal structures and various elements, which have served as mechanisms to influence these social actions.

At the macro-societal level, these differences also have a meaning. At this level, power reveals its importance as an important social aggregate that permits the struc-turation of social actions. Often, only minor parts of social groups have the power to establish and transform structures. A powerful group, for example, will try to impose its value system. This may go so far as to support powerful ideological systems, such as socialism or capitalism in the time of the Cold War, or, in times of globalization, neoliberalism as an economic system. Powerful social actors recourse to macro-cultural societal structures and plans to institutionalize certain structures or the meaning of structures they want to change. I will show in the following how these actors influence these processes and the transformation of the structure in question in order to achieve their goals. Since a societal structure only exists in the moment when an interaction between different groups takes place, an analysis of the changes that have taken place over longer periods permits to show different temporal aspects of these structures.

A Macro-Societal Analysis

The advantage of a macro-societal analysis lies in the analysis of the formation of structures, the proof of their existence, and their stability or instability. A single actor – even if they belong to the group of powerful people – does not necessarily know the effects of, or the reasons for his/her actions. An individual of a disadvantaged social group often lives these phenomena, without knowing the mechanisms underlying their functioning (Foucault, 1975).

It seems to be particularly useful to study the interaction that takes place between individuals, groups, and societal structures in a process of structural change. Life stories



can then be viewed as an expression of the conflict between two structures. The actions of individuals orientate themselves in a structural transformation process towards two different and incompatible social systems (e.g. during the colonial period in the South between indigenous social systems and Western social structures). They reflect the fric-tions and ruptures between these two value systems. The analysis of a transformation process is based on the fact that any given structure at a particular time may no longer be based on an acceptable value system. This structure proves then to be no longer adapted to social reality. If the action system changes, structures that are no longer favoured become problematic. Before the actors are involved and realize this type of change, a given structure can already have undergone a change and have become a dominant structure.

When analyzing transformation processes of societies, this phenomenon can be striking. Thus, for example, colonization ‒ seen as a gradual process of transforma-tions over time and the development project of a powerful exterior group – led in a relatively short time period to a fundamental restructuring of social systems of African, Asian, and Latin American societies. French colonization – which I know the best – can be taken as an example for this type of transformation process. The systematic introduction of economic, political, social, and cultural systems that were different from those of the indigenous local societies implied that the colonial power could succeed to gradually enforce Western structures and to realize some of its goals (Schuerkens, 2001a).

Since the analysis of social change must take into account social systems of the indigenous peoples, the influence of Western cultures on these social systems, and the phenomenon of change that results from the interaction between both, it appears to be extremely complex and goes beyond modernization theories that privilege a development towards a Western model, without regarding the specific elements of a given society, and also further than dependency theory, which tried to explain this change by influences coming from an unequal world system. Only an analysis that takes into account these three dimensions will allow to highlight the totality of social relations and the specific nature of change during the colonial period and its impact on current processes of development.

As this approach resembles a research program, I’m going to emphasize some individual phenomena in this book after the presentation of the theoretical model in this chapter. This brings me to the subject of what is considered a theory of social change.

A Complex approach

In general, social scientists try to analyze reasons, forms, and possible directions of social change. In part, this practice reflects the interests of the members of a society to gather knowledge about the past, the present, and the future while con-sidering the fact that it is rarely possible to fully explain history or future events better than by giving some general conditions. The anthropological and sociological



explanation of transformations refers to the structure of a society in transition and to factors causing this change. The analysis of the transformations of a society per-mits to identify conditions and elements that lead a society from one characteristic state to another one.

It seems of interest here to focus on the concepts of structure and time and to highlight particular aspects with regard to different categories of countries. If you look at developments from a structural and temporal aspect, the question arises of how global and local social structures interact with each other. A basic assumption of this approach is that there was an internationalization of some particular structures and a more or less conscious acceptance of global models or at least parts of them by large population groups in the respective regions. These processes then led to the fact that in these regions situations occurred which made it possible to detect a specific mix of indigenous local and Western (global) models. Colonization thus implanted a partially planned structural change in colonized regions. The increase in interac-tions between colonial powers and local populations consisted e.g. in the fact that a structural model coming from the outside was introduced, which had to adapt to local cultural systems in order to introduce a functional change.

These processes concern all population groups in today’s global age: immi-grants from the remote rural areas of southern regions bring information from the North back to the South. Today, one can hardly meet groups that are unaffected by individual global structural features. The type of change certainly depends on the particular local cultural systems which react differently to these elements coming from outside their social structures. The actors in these local social systems have shown resistance in one or the other way and have developed certain important aspects for their survival, parallel to the increasing influence of structures created by the global development model.

At this point, the time factor is a tool for analyzing the changes that have taken place in these societies. Since a change in a social system never affects all elements at the same time, individual elements convert mostly in a first phase and trigger the change of other elements up to a moment when the emergence of another model structure is observed. In many regions of the world, structural transformation pro-cesses can be observed that are more or less dependent on given social systems and the concerned population groups.

Interaction of Different Cultural Models

The problems of social transformations and development(s) are thus bound to analy-ses concerning the existing interactions of different cultural models. These processes proceed in the long term and require a diachronic description so that different temporal situations can be described in a chronological order that must take into account new phenomena resulting from increased interactions.

Processes can be represented by individual structural characteristics, which rep-resent a sequence of events over time. A social process can only be explained by



isolating significant empirical elements found which form a given structure and by analyzing their relationships with each other. A specific moment of a transformation process can be illustrated by the connection of individual elements and the relation-ships between them. The transformation of a given structure or the emergence of two different structures may represent different periods of social history. Without the concept of structure, social processes, and thus history as a special kind of long-term development, cannot be understood.

Analyzing the structures of a society allows the identification of elements and events that are important for a historical development; particular conflicts and con-tradictions within a given process; the outcomes of individual events – whether endogenous or exogenous – that occur within a social system or the possibilities of development, which a certain type of society allows. The historical time of a social system is thus nothing more than the result of the combination of different parts of a system and its different times. To define the characteristics of a transformation process, the outcomes of different processes at different moments of social history must be reconstructed.

The Approach of Teune and Mlinar

The approach of Teune and Mlinar, which influenced my research in the last years, has attempted to apply this framework to a theory of social transformations. Since this conceptual design can be considered being a heuristic framework, I present here some essential aspects for the subject of this book. Both social scientists claim that they have proposed a theory that applies not only to highly industrialized societies but also to societies of the South, their past, present, and future (1978: 9). In their understanding, development is a feature of all social systems. It is defined by a grow-ing diversity of system components and the subsequent integration of these or other components. Social development thus takes place between the two poles of diversity and integration (Lockwood, 1964): the extreme point of integration means that the stability of the various system components is so high that a continuous development due to the rigidity of the structure is no longer possible. On the other hand, a high degree of diversity leads to a progressive change. The development of a system is thus dependent on the interaction between diversity and integration.

A no longer acceptable degree of integration determines, according to the authors, the degree of probability of a change in the characteristics of a particular system ele-ment (Teune and Mlinar, 1978: 43). Diversity is the opposite pole on this continuum between integration and diversity. Social development, according to Teune and Mlinar, is a process that combines new levels of integration and diversity (1978: 44). The change of these levels indicates the direction of social development. Possibilities of disintegration (high diversity) or stagnation (high integration) are not excluded.

The transformation of a system is realized at the moment in which a system reaches its limits of diversity and integration. At this moment, a new integration principle of society and its characteristic structures appears. The development form



is also dependent on the number of system elements, i.e. a higher variation in the elements of a system allows a greater change. This process can be considered in the following manner: a new element is introduced into a system at a given time; this element increases the diversity of the system but reduces its level of integration; the individual components of the system accept the new element. The probability that a new item is created increases, and once this element exists, the process described here begins again (1978: 72). Consequently, each new element reduces the degree of integration of the system and increases at the same time the total number of its elements. The new element must be integrated into the system and thus changes the relationships that the elements have established among themselves. The degree of integration can also increase in proportion to the degree of development of the system (1978: 74ff.).

I return to the temporal factor that is of great interest in this field: the diachronic process. Only by observing the structure of a given society and its specific transfor-mations, can sociologists and social anthropologists determine the characteristics of a social and cultural system. Often, this analysis is only possible with the aid of a theoretical and empirical approach that includes the time factor. In fact, this analysis refers to a specific location and a specific moment of social history. However, the most important theoretical aspect is the process of the construction of social ele-ments rather than place-specific transformations or the historical moment that is taken into consideration.

THE CONCEPT OF TIME IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL CHANGEThe second notion I would like to discuss is the concept of time that is linked in two ways to the discussion of the concept of structure: it is a notion that is closely related, on the one hand, to a structural change, as it can only take place in time, and, on the other hand, to one that represents a set of values that are particular for a certain type of society. Since a change can only be recognized by the compari-son of different time intervals, the specificity of a structural change is based on the temporal distance that exists between the past, the present, and the future. The past structures the present, since a later moment is linked in one or the other way to an earlier moment. A future structure can only be realized if it represents individual and social values that are compatible with existing social systems and which do not form breaks or frictions with other values. Powerful groups often initiate struc-tural transformations. In some countries of the South (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), the groups that came to power went through European educational institutions. These groups initially accepted certain new values. Educational institutions (e.g. mission schools, overseas universities) and mass media legitimized them. These social actors, who created new cultural systems and who were acculturated by these systems, had to spread these values in a second phase to ensure the survival of the system that they represented. The distribution of these values was assured



according to existing social layers. Since a disadvantaged social class can rarely introduce a structural change, in most cases, a dominant group has elaborated the structural change that took place in the countries of the South. This group carried out the formal implantation of this structure, introduced new values, and managed to have them accepted and valorized by groups that were more and more inter-ested in possessing these values (including goods) and also in benefitting from their utilization. These new social values could thus become preliminary conditions to participate in important new social systems (e.g. school and university education, and obtaining qualifications for certain professions).

Colonial Development Policy

In the case of large parts of the countries of the geographical South, these trans-formations were first introduced by colonial powers that influenced these regions with their colonial development policy and economic exchange. The formation of a difference came from outside of the social system of the indigenous populations and had to be incorporated into the existing social system. All this was done with the explicit goal to initiate a process of transformation that was viewed as irrevers-ible. If one considers that the societies in sub-Saharan Africa were confronted with societal structures that significantly differed from their own, one can imagine how much effort was needed from these societies to maintain their values in a functional state, derived from two cultural systems that were based on different structures. The resulting fractures and frictions are expressed in what is referred to as development problems since the 1960s.

THE UTILIZATION OF THE CONCEPTS OF STRUCTURE AND TIME IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL CHANGEA structural analysis that takes into account the diachronic factor combines struc-tural conditions that follow one on another in time. They can exist in a more or less balanced form depending on significant features of both structural systems so that critical elements are accepted, expressing the asynchrony between both social systems. The disharmony that should challenge the stability of a system can only be overcome when integration levels are reached that are functional for a given social system. An in-depth analysis makes thus clear the specific way of the connection of elements and allows clarifying the inconsistency and incompatibility of values of different origins.

Structural Conflicts

This understanding of the problem offers a first possibility to overcome a structural conflict. A structure can be formed that depends on the functioning of the system



and on specific objectives of social actions. The selectivity of the structure is then conditioned and adapted in terms of their duration. Limited opportunities make it possible that the system works according to some new criteria that do not favour the acceptance of so-called traditional and modern values. The new structure can then offer previously unknown action possibilities and allows, through a process that takes into account different events, the selection of other options that can lead to a structural change. Each new element then puts the interaction over time – past, present, and future – in a relationship that is different from the previous ones. The concept of time makes it thus possible to determine the differences between the earlier and the later events. However, this temporal dimension of future events shows that the new element is always a transitory factor, which also depends on time and its historic character.

The various elements of social structures in our contemporary societies and their integration into a functioning system are constantly changing in the world system. This requires special efforts not only from powerful groups, but also from poorer population groups that are more or less affected by these structural transfor-mations. The persistence of change if it is not accepted in a positive way can create disharmonies, ranging from the general structures of a society to the characteristic local structures: interactive groups, labour relations, and friendship relations. The possibility of a change can be limited to the creation of relatively stable structures. The structure that is suitable for social change is then stabilized or replaced by a structure that was nonconformist in view of given options.

The realization of a structure requires a consensus on common values and allows a re-orientation of social expectations and selected options. It is thus clear that transformation in this sense is the acceptance of different states of a social system, without being always sure what type follows next, what is a desirable development, and what is adapted to the specific situation at a specific time. A social system can learn to react through these different options. Neither the repertoire of existing values, nor updated actions make it possible to define the nature and the characteristics of an intentional change. A stabilization of social expectations is guaranteed by any legal system. The conformity of an action with the existing development opportunities is then assured. However, the legal sys-tem is also obliged to ensure its own survival. An action that follows another one must remain a latent possibility: only the choices made can be evaluated. Structural changes are taking place continuously, even without the awareness of social agents. When structures have become obsolete, the social actor is aware of this and re-updates the changes.

Scholars usually make a distinction between two forms of change: one that can be characterized by its teleological aspect and another by its non-deliberate, non-predictable transformation process that is limited and permits a functional relationship with its previous state (Luhmann, 1984: 485 ff.). This last type is certainly the one that includes most frequently an aspect of apparent randomness.



Morphogenetic Processes

These morphogenetic processes (Archer, 1985) depend on elements located outside of the system and on the reduced possibilities of a system to initiate its own change. This type of transformation requires special attention since it appears risky to adopt constant transformation processes without a detailed analysis. Research on inten-tional actions in sociology and social anthropology provides significant insights on certain processes. The proposed analysis of transformations and developments ‒ including intended objectives – has therefore a teleological character without being a fully planned action and can point out transformation processes in order to achieve social expectations and cumulative conditions that allow structural changes without challenging the social system. Wolfgang Zapf ’s definition that referred to transforma-tion processes in East Germany and Eastern Europe is similar to the concept proposed here. He wrote:

Transformation and transition are modernization processes that differ from open modernization processes of evolutionary innovation in that the objective is known: The acquisition, construction, incorporation of modern institutions which are democratic, and based on the market economy and the rule of law.(1994: 138; translation; emphasis in the original)

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL CHANGESThis more or less theoretical discussion insists on certain necessary elements of an analysis of transformation processes that take place in the countries of the South and the North. It seems as if an analysis that uses the terminology of the approaches of the 1960s up to the 1990s is no longer possible.

My remarks underline that an approach adapted to the problem of change cannot avoid the recourse to the concept of structure and in particular the transformation of a structure over time. In the case of the societies of the South but also increasingly those of the North, this means that there are actual transformation processes that can only be explained by the interaction of two social structures that have confronted each other more and more since the beginning of the European colonial period and later on in the globalization processes of the last 30 years. This interaction has meant that two or more very different structural systems interact. In this situation, it is easily understood that the structures of dominant groups are easier to implant. However, they are in opposition to social structures of other populations that may resist and create divergent reactions. It is an empirical question whether the coexistence of two or more structures is possible despite their differences and what the develop-ing transformation would look like. Gradually, dominant structures of a powerful model may be implanted. They may encounter less powerful structures that have



to respond. In most cases, the survival of these social systems depends on historical situations and given possibilities, so that the social actors themselves may be quite unconscious of the diminishing importance of some elements, or even the possibil-ity that these elements challenge the functioning of the entire social system. When disharmonies become obvious, one begins to speak of mixtures, glocal situations, or hybridization. However, these terms set out the facts without revealing the real causes linked to overall transformation processes in the global world.

Genesis and Functionality

I have shown here that transformation problems must be observed in other terms so that problems can be explained while respecting their genesis and their func-tionality, so that it is possible to overcome a situation that is often considered to be dramatic. This presentation of the problem is a first reflection in theoretical terms that I try to specify in the book so that concrete situations can be analyzed ‒ which will be carried out using numerous examples of different societal sub-fields – and empirical problems are chosen, which make it possible to substantiate the validity of such an approach and to point out current problems of the global world through an analytical choice. This also means that global and local cultures need to be taken into account in transformation and transition processes, their influences on global changes that no longer appear to be reversible, and that allow the various world societies to develop in a peaceful way.

In this book, therefore, I emphasize the divergence of global changes and the limited universality of certain structures that have emerged from social structures of world populations in interaction. The diversity of transformations is realized in a specific place and in a specific solution of wanted, accepted, or rejected interac-tions. However, the diversity of cultures will continue; a fact that does not trigger the same variety of possible developments. Transformations in an interactive world must accept local variations, but should in no case be reversed to put an emphasis on the authenticity of a given culture. However, the current trends underline that differences are orientated to processes of glocalization that I try to summarize in this book.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. What are the primary differences between modernization theory and dependency theories?

2. What is the benefit of an approach including time and structure?

3. What are the advantages of the approach of entangled modernities?

4. How would you start research on global change?

5. What is the main purpose of an analysis of change under global conditions?



ANNOTATED FURTHER READINGS

Hopper, P. (2012) Understanding Development: Issues and Debates. Cambridge: Polity.

Understanding Development is an introduction to the major issues and critical debates about development in the contemporary world. Drawing on a wide range of case studies from across the globe, the book explores the contested and plural nature of the field and takes full account of the impact of globalization.

Kollmorgen, R., Merkel, W. and Wagener, H.-J. (eds) (2015) Handbuch Transformationsforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Topics of the book are fields, theories, and methods of social science research on transformations. The volume begins with the three major paradigms of transformation research: system, institutions, and actors. Prominent research approaches follow, among others, modernization theory, structuralism, development economics, and political economy. Another part is devoted to methods. This manual integrates perspectives of political science, sociology, and economics.

Rist, G. (2014) The History of Development: From Western Origin to Global Faith. (Fourth edition). London: Zed Books.

The History of Development is a classic development text, which provides an interesting overview of what the idea of development has meant throughout history. Rist traces it from its origins in the Western view of history, through the early stages of the world system and the supposed triumph of third-worldism, through to new concerns about the environment and globalization.

Websiteshttp://www.ids.ac.uk/Website of the Institute of Development Studies, United Kingdom.

http://rodrik.typepad.com/Dani Rodrik’s weblog on economic development and globalization.

http://blogs.adb.org/blog/Asian development blog.

http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/A blog of the World Bank.

http://csd.columbia.edu/blog/Website of the Center for Sustainable Development of the Earth Institute Columbia University.



http://www.isa-sociology.org/rc09.htmWebsite of the Research Committee 09 Social Transformations and Sociology of Development of the International Sociological Association.

http://www.asanet.org/asa-communities/sections/developmentWebsite of the Sociology of Development Section of the American Sociological Association.

(all websites accessed 27 September 2016)


Documents

SocIal Changes In a global World - SAGE Publications · are presented such as modernization theory, ... were inspired by theories of modernization and pointed out a growing convergence